LATHAM & WATKINS LLP Marvin S. Putnam (SBN...

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES

PLS.’ EX PARTE APPLICATION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISSOLVE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP Marvin S. Putnam (SBN 212839) [email protected] Amy C. Quartarolo (SBN 222144) [email protected] Adam S. Sieff (SBN 302030) [email protected] Harrison J. White (SBN 307790) [email protected] 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 100 Los Angeles, California 90071-1560 Telephone: +1.213.485.1234 Facsimile: +1.213.891.8763 National Center for Lesbian Rights Shannon P. Minter (SBN 168907) [email protected] Amy Whelan (SBN 2155675) [email protected] 870 Market Street, Suite 360 San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: +1.415.392.6257 Facsimile: +1.415.392.8442 GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders Jennifer Levi (admitted pro hac vice) [email protected] Mary L. Bonauto (admitted pro hac vice) [email protected] 30 Winter Street, Suite 800 Boston, MA 02108 Telephone: +1.617.426.1350 Facsimile: +1.617.426.3594

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Aiden Stockman, Nicolas Talbott, Tamasyn Reeves, Jaquice Tate, John Does 1-2, Jane Doe, and Equality California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AIDEN STOCKMAN; NICOLAS TALBOTT; TAMASYN REEVES; JAQUICE TATE; JOHN DOES 1-2; JANE DOE; and EQUALITY CALIFORNIA,

Plaintiffs,

v. DONALD J. TRUMP, et al.

Defendants.

CASE NO. 5:17-CV-01799-JGB-KK

PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISSOLVE THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF

Case 5:17-cv-01799-JGB-KK Document 85 Filed 03/27/18 Page 1 of 9 Page ID #:2499

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES

1


Pursuant to Local Rule 7-19, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(c)(1)(A),

and this Court’s standing orders, Plaintiffs hereby apply to this Court Ex Parte (the

“Ex Parte Application”) for an order striking Defendants’ Motion to Dissolve the

Preliminary Injunction (the “Motion”) [Docket No. 82], on the grounds that

Defendants failed to meet and confer with Plaintiffs prior to filing their Motion as

required by Local Rule 7-3.

Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application is brought on the grounds that Defendants

filed the Motion in violation of Local Rule 7-3, which requires that “counsel

contemplating the filing of any motion shall first contact opposing counsel to

discuss thoroughly . . . the substance of the contemplated motion and any potential

resolution” and that “the conference shall take place at least seven (7) days prior to

the filing of the motion.” L.R 7-3 (emphasis added). Local Rule 7-3 also requires

the movant to make an affirmative statement in its notice of motion “to the

following effect: ‘This motion is made following the conference of counsel

pursuant to L.R. 7-3 which took place on (date).’” Id.

Here, it is undisputed that Defendants did not meet and confer prior to filing

the Motion. See Declaration of Amy C. Quartarolo In Support of Ex Parte

Application to Strike Defendants’ Motion to Dissolve the Preliminary Injunction

(the “Quartarolo Decl.”) at ¶¶ 3-4. As a result, Plaintiffs are prejudiced in their

ability to respond to the Motion. Based on the hearing date Defendants noticed,

Plaintiffs’ opposition to the Motion is due on April 2 – only ten days after

Plaintiffs’ first learned that Defendants intended to seek the relief requested in the

Motion. In their Motion, Defendants offer no explanation why they have failed to

comply with Local Rule 7-3 and no justification why they should be excused from

doing so.

As set forth in the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities,

Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application should be granted because the appropriate remedy

for Defendants’ violations of the Local Rules is to strike the non-compliant Motion


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES

2


and all papers associated with Defendants’ Motion. See e.g., Elwood v. Drescher,

456 F.3d 943, 949 (9th Cir. 2006) (affirming district court’s striking the motion for

failure to comply with Local Rule 7-3).

Pursuant to Local Rule 7-19.1, notice of this Ex Parte Application was given

to Defendants’ counsel of record:

Ryan B. Parker

Andrew Carmichael

UNITED STATES DEPT. OF JUSTICE

Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch

Telephone: (202) 514-4336

Email: [email protected]

[email protected] Specifically, on March 26, 2018, counsel for Plaintiffs called and then sent

counsel for Defendants an email advising them of Plaintiffs’ intention to file the

instant Ex Parte Application and inquiring as to whether they would oppose such

an application. (See Quartarolo Decl., Ex. A.) On March 27, 2018, counsel for

Plaintiffs spoke by telephone with counsel for Defendants. (See id. at ¶ 3.)

Defendants’ counsel advised that they did not believe that they were required to

comply with Local Rule 7-3 and that, in any event, any meet and confer efforts

would be futile. (See id.) Plaintiffs’ counsel requested that Defendants withdraw

the Motion, engage in the necessary Local Rule 7-3 conference, and then re-file the

Motion if necessary. (See id.) Following the telephone call, Defendants’ counsel

sent an email confirming that Defendants refuse to withdraw the Motion. (See id.,

Ex. B.) Defendants were thus put on notice of the contents of Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte

Application pursuant to Local Rule 7-19.1.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES

3


Dated: March 27, 2018 Respectfully submitted,

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP

By: /s/ Amy C. Quartarolo Amy C. Quartarolo

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Aiden Stockman, Nicolas Talbott, Tamasyn Reeves, Jaquice Tate, John Does 1-2, Jane Doe, and Equality California CALIFORNIA DEPT. OF JUSTICE

By: /s/ Enrique A. Monagas Enrique Monagas

Attorneys for Plaintiff-Intervenor State of California


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES

4


MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES Plaintiffs hereby submit this Memorandum of Points and Authorities in

support of their Ex Parte Application (the “Ex Parte Application”) to Strike

Defendants’ Motion to Dissolve the Preliminary Injunction [Docket No. 82] (the

“Motion”) for failure to comply with Local Rule 7-3.

I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs—transgender individuals who currently serve in the military or

have taken concrete steps to accede into the military, similarly situated members of

Equality California, and the State of California—bring this action to prevent the

irreparable harms caused by Defendants’ policies banning military service by

transgender people. On December 21, 2017, this Court recognized the irreparable

harms that Plaintiffs have and will continue to suffer if the ban is not enjoined, and

issued a preliminary injunction [Docket No. 79].

In response, Defendants have attempted to moot the injunction by purporting

to “revoke” the ban as articulated by the August 25, 2017 directive issued by

Defendant President Trump and replace it with a substantively similar ban –

effectively barring military service by transgender people – signed by Defendant

Secretary Mattis implementing the policy expressed in the earlier ban. On the very

day that Defendants’ issued their implementation policy, March 23, 2018,

Defendants filed the Motion, seeking to dissolve the preliminary injunction.1 (See

Declaration of Amy C. Quartarolo In Support of Ex Parte Application to Strike

Defendants’ Motion to Dissolve the Preliminary Injunction (the “Quartarolo Decl.”)

¶ 4.) However, Defendants made no effort to disclose the implementation policy to

Plaintiffs prior to filing the Motion, made no effort to meet and confer regarding the

1 In fact, while Plaintiffs have been repeatedly attempting to contact Defendants to finalize their Joint 26(f) Report and proposed protective order in an effort to move the case along, Defendants have refused to respond or engage in any way for nearly two weeks. (See Quartarolo Decl., ¶ 5, Ex. C.)


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES

5


relief sought in the Motion, and altogether failed to comply with Local Rule 7-3.

(See id.) For this reason alone, the Motion should be stricken.

II. DEFENDANTS VIOLATED LOCAL RULE 7-3 Local Rule 7-3 requires that a “counsel contemplating the filing of any

motion shall first contact opposing counsel to discuss thoroughly . . . the substance

of the contemplated motion and any potential resolution” and that “the conference

shall take place at least seven (7) days prior to the filing of the motion.” L.R 7-3

(emphasis added). Local Rule 7-3 also requires the movant to make an affirmative

statement in its notice of motion “to the following effect: ‘This motion is made

following the conference of counsel pursuant to L.R. 7-3 which took place on

(date).’” Id.

The Central District of California “requires strict compliance with Local

Rule 7-3.” Fuji Photo Film Co. v. Achiever Indus., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

101986, *4 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 2, 2007) (Walter, J.); Alcatel-Lucent USA, Inc. v.

Dugdale Communications, Inc., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100499, *11 (C.D. Cal.

Oct. 13, 2009) (Guttierez, J.) (discussing Local Rule 7-3 and opining that “nothing

short of strict compliance with the local rules will be expected in this [c]ourt.”).

Defendants’ Motion does not fall within one of the narrow exceptions to the

meet and confer requirement under Local Rule 7-3. Contrary to their post hac

excuse offered only after notice of this Ex Parte Application was provided, the

Motion is not exempted from Local Rule 7-3 simply because it “relates to” a

preliminary injunction. That exception applies only to “applications for temporary

restraining orders or preliminary injunctions” (C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-3) – not to all

motions “related to” preliminary injunctions. Moreover, Defendants are not

excused from failing to comply with the Local Rules because they inquired after

filing the Motion and in response to notice of this Ex Parte Application whether

Plaintiffs oppose the Motion. They cannot justify their flouting of the Local Rules

by contending after the filing of the Motion that Plaintiffs would be likely to


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES

6


oppose anyway. The requirements of Local Rule 7-3 are “in place for a reason”

and are intended to ensure that the parties have an opportunity – prior to the filing

of a motion – to have a thorough discussion regarding the relief sought and the

basis therefore, to discuss any resolution of disputes, and to negotiate a briefing

schedule and hearing date. Alcatel-Lucent, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100499, *11;

see also U.S.A. v. Kan-Di-Ki LLC, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 198258, *2-6 (C.D. Cal.

Mar. 21, 2013) (confirming that compliance with Local Rule 7-3 is “mandatory”

and enables the parties to “better focus[] their arguments”).

III. BECAUSE DEFENDANTS VIOLATED LOCAL RULE 7-3, THE MOTION SHOULD BE STRICKEN The remedy for Defendants’ failure to comply with the Local Rules is to

strike the non-compliant Motion and all associated filings. See e.g., Elwood v.

Drescher, 456 F.3d 943, 949 (9th Cir. 2006) (affirming district court’s striking the

motion for failure to comply with Local Rule 7-3); see also Vogel v. Eastern

Galaxy Plaza, LLC, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31964, *5-9 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 8, 2016)

(Bernal, J.) (striking motion for failure to comply with Local Rule 7-3); Abtahi v.

Chase Home Fin. LLC, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68428 (C.D. Cal. June 27, 2011)

(Tucker, J.); Chih-Cheng Tsao v. County of Los Angeles, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

43837, *7 n.6 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2011) (Woerhle, M.J.) (denying motion without

prejudice and removing it from calendar for failure to comply with Local Rule 7-

3); Nassirpour v. F.D.I.C., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105940, *9 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 29,

2008) (King, J.) (“Because the [movant] failed to comply with Local Rule 7-3

when bringing this [motion] this [motion] hereby TAKEN OFF CALENDAR and

DENIED without prejudice to its refiling after a proper meet and confer in

accordance with the rule.”) (emphasis in original).

Here, it is undisputed that Defendants violated Local Rule 7-3 and failed to

initiate a meet and confer with Plaintiffs at least seven days prior to filing their

Motion. (See Quartarolo Decl., ¶ 4.) Moreover, notably absent from Defendants’


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES

7


Notice and Motion is any statement affirming that a conference of counsel took

place. Defendants’ Motion makes no attempt to explain or excuse their failure to

so comply with the Local Rules, and have since declined to withdraw the Motion

and comply with the meet and confer requirements. (See Quartarolo Decl., Ex. B.)

Defendants’ violation of Local Rule 7-3 is inexcusable. Accordingly, the

Motion should be stricken and Defendants ordered to re-file it only after ensuring

compliance with Local Rule 7-3.

IV. CONCLUSION The Court should grant Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application, and strike the

Motion on account of Defendants’ failure to comply with Local Rule 7-3.

Dated: March 27, 2018 Respectfully submitted,

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP

By: /s/ Amy C. Quartarolo Amy C. Quartarolo

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Aiden Stockman, Nicolas Talbott, Tamasyn Reeves, Jaquice Tate, John Does 1-2, Jane Doe, and Equality California CALIFORNIA DEPT. OF JUSTICE

By: /s/ Enrique A. Monagas Enrique Monagas

Attorneys for Plaintiff-Intervenor State of California


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES

8


ATTESTATION Pursuant to Local Rule 5-4.3.4(a)(2)(ii), I, Amy C. Quartarolo, attest that all

other signatories listed, and on whose behalf this filing is submitted, concur in this

filing’s content and have authorized such filing.

By: /s/ Amy C. Quartarolo

Amy C. Quartarolo


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES

QUARTAROLO DECL. ISO EX PARTE APPLICATION TO STRIKE MOTION TO DISSOLVE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION





Plaintiffs,


Defendants.


DECLARATION OF AMY C. QUARTAROLO IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISSOLVE THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Case 5:17-cv-01799-JGB-KK Document 85-1 Filed 03/27/18 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:2508

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES

1


I, Amy C. Quartarolo, declare as follows:

1. I am an attorney at Latham & Watkins LLP licensed to practice law in

the State of California. I am counsel of record for Plaintiffs in the above-captioned

litigation. I submit this declaration in support of Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application

to Strike Defendants’ Motion to Dissolve the Preliminary Injunction. I have

personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this declaration and if called as a

witness, could and would testify competently thereto.

2. On March 26, 2018, I called and then sent counsel for Defendants,

Ryan Parker, an email advising them of Plaintiffs’ intention to move ex parte to

strike Defendants’ Motion to Dissolve the Preliminary Injunction [Docket No. 82]

(the “Motion”). Upon receiving an out-of-office message for Mr. Parker, I reached

out to his colleague, Andrew Carmichael. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true

and correct copy of my March 26, 2018 emails to Messers. Parker and Carmichael.

3. On March 27, 2018, Mr. Parker expressed in an email that he did not

believe that Defendants were required to comply with Local Rule 7-3 because it

“related to” the preliminary injunction. Following a further email exchange, I

spoke by phone with Mr. Carmichael. Mr. Carmichael argued that Defendants

were exempted from complying with Local Rule 7-3, and that, in any event, any

meet and confer would be futile because we were not likely to agree to dissolve the

preliminary injunction. I advised that the narrow exemptions set forth in Local

Rule 7-3 did not apply to the Motion, and I asked if Defendants would agree to

withdraw the Motion so that all counsel could engage in a meaningful Local Rule

7-3 conference. Following our call, Mr. Carmichael sent me an email confirming

that Defendants would not agree to withdraw the Motion, and further confirming

Defendants position that (i) they were not required to comply with Local Rule 7-3,

and (ii) any failure to meet and confer was justified because it would be futile.

Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of emails exchanged

between Messers. Parker and Carmichael and me on March 27, 2018.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES

2


4. Defendants’ filed the Motion on the very day that they issued their

implementation policy, March 23, 2018. Defendants made no effort to disclose the

implementation policy to Plaintiffs prior to filing the Motion, and made no effort to

meet and confer regarding the relief sought in the Motion prior to filing.

5. While Plaintiffs have been repeatedly attempting to contact

Defendants to finalize their Joint 26(f) Report and proposed protective order in an

effort to move the case along, Defendants have refused to respond or engage in any

way for nearly two weeks. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy

of emails exchanged between Mr. Parker and me on March 13, 16 and 23, 2018

(attachments omitted).

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of

America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed March 27, 2018 in Los

Angeles, CA.

/s/ Amy C. Quartarolo

Amy C. Quartarolo


EXHIBIT A


1

Behrooz, Shirin (LA)

From: Quartarolo, Amy (LA)Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 8:17 PMTo: Parker, Ryan (CIV)Cc: [email protected]: Stockman v. Trump - Ex Parte Notice

Ryan –

Following up on my voicemail, we were disappointed to receive your Motion to Dissolve the Preliminary Injunction on Friday night, particularly when we had not received any response from you in our attempts to finalize the Joint 26(f) Report and protective order.

As I stated in my voicemail, Plaintiffs intend to file tomorrow (March 27) an ex parte application to strike your Motion for failure to comply with Local Rule 7-3. Please confirm whether you intend to oppose.

Thank you,

Amy C. Quartarolo

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 100 Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560 Direct Dial: +1.213.891.8966 Fax: +1.213.891.8763 Email: [email protected] http://www.lw.com

Exhibit A - Page 3


1


From: Quartarolo, Amy (LA)Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 8:20 PMTo: [email protected]: Parker, Ryan (CIV); [email protected]: FW: Stockman v. Trump - Ex Parte NoticeAttachments: Stockman v. Trump - Ex Parte Notice

See attached. From: Parker, Ryan (CIV) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 8:18 PM To: Quartarolo, Amy (LA) <[email protected]> Subject: Automatic reply: Stockman v. Trump - Ex Parte Notice I'm traveling for a hearing and have limited access to my email. I will respond to urgent emails as soon as possible and other emails when I return to the office on March 28, 2018. For emergencies, please contact my colleage Andrew Carmichael at [email protected]. Best, Ryan Parker Senior Trial Counsel Department of Justice

Exhibit A - Page 4


1


From: Quartarolo, Amy (LA)Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 8:17 PMTo: Parker, Ryan (CIV)Cc: [email protected]: Stockman v. Trump - Ex Parte Notice

Ryan – Following up on my voicemail, we were disappointed to receive your Motion to Dissolve the Preliminary Injunction on Friday night, particularly when we had not received any response from you in our attempts to finalize the Joint 26(f) Report and protective order. As I stated in my voicemail, Plaintiffs intend to file tomorrow (March 27) an ex parte application to strike your Motion for failure to comply with Local Rule 7-3. Please confirm whether you intend to oppose. Thank you, Amy C. Quartarolo LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 100 Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560 Direct Dial: +1.213.891.8966 Fax: +1.213.891.8763 Email: <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] <http://www.lw.com/> http://www.lw.com

Exhibit A - Page 5


EXHIBIT B


1


From: Carmichael, Andrew E. (CIV) <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2018 11:40 AMTo: Quartarolo, Amy (LA); Parker, Ryan (CIV)Cc: [email protected]: RE: Stockman v. Trump - Ex Parte Notice

Amy,

It was nice speaking with you earlier. In response to your request for Defendants to withdraw their motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction, the Government declines to do so.

We do not believe that Local Rule 7-3 required us to meet and confer on our motion because it was related to a preliminary injunction. In any event, I asked you during our phone conversation to provide Plaintiffs’ position on our motion to dissolve and you declined to provide it. Given your response, we believe a meet and confer on our motion would be futile and the Court may address the merits of our motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction even if the Local Rules require a meet and confer on this type of motion. See Pickett v. Nev. Bd. of Parole Com'rs, 2012 WL 1376969, at *3 (D.Nev. Apr. 19, 2012) (noting that although required by local rule, “courts have held that ‘special circumstances’ or a responding parties’ complete failure to respond can obviate a requesting parties’ need to meet and confer” and citing cases); see also Feldman v. Pokertek, Inc., 2011 WL 4543990, at *2 (D.Nev. Nov. 30, 2010) (addressing merits of motion to compel despite plaintiff’s failure to meet and confer and noting defendant’s utter failure to produce requested documents); cf. Yue v. Storage Tech. Corp., 2008 WL 4185835, at *7 (N.D.Cal. Sept. 5, 2008) (declining to strike motion for attorney fees despite failure to meet and confer as required by local rules after finding that ordering the parties to meet and confer would be futile); Thomas v.. Baca, 231 F.R.D. 397, 404 (C.D.Cal.2005) (explaining that failure to meet and confer, as required by local rule, was not a sufficient reason to deny class certification motion because informal resolution of motion was not possible).

As discussed on the phone call, we are happy to work out a briefing schedule on our motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction that gives you more time to respond if you need it.

Best regards,

Drew

Drew Carmichael Trial Attorney Federal Programs Branch, Civil Division U.S. Department of Justice 20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Rm. 7218 Washington, D.C. 20530 (202) 514-3346

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2018 11:31 AM To: Carmichael, Andrew E. (CIV) <[email protected]>; Parker, Ryan (CIV) <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Subject: RE: Stockman v. Trump - Ex Parte Notice

Exhibit B - Page 6


2

Drew – I assume your times are ET? I will call you at 12:45pm ET. Please let me know at what number to reach you. From: Carmichael, Andrew E. (CIV) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2018 7:27 AM To: Quartarolo, Amy (LA) <[email protected]>; Parker, Ryan (CIV) <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Subject: RE: Stockman v. Trump - Ex Parte Notice Amy, I have some availability today to discuss. I am available from now until 11:30 and then I have a short window from 12:45 to 1:45 and then after 3 (all EST). Best regards, Drew From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2018 9:02 AM To: Parker, Ryan (CIV) <[email protected]>; Carmichael, Andrew E. (CIV) <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Subject: RE: Stockman v. Trump - Ex Parte Notice We do not read the rule to extend to the Motion you filed as the Local Rule exempts only motions seeking preliminary injunctions, not motions “related to” preliminary injunctions. And we cannot wait to discuss until tomorrow. The hearing date you selected would require us to file our opposition next Monday, and if we are unable to resolve the issue we would be prejudiced by the delay in having this issue of your failure to comply with the Local Rules resolved by the Court. If you or someone from your office is available today to discuss by phone, we will make ourselves available - otherwise we will need to seek relief from the Court.

From: Parker, Ryan (CIV) <[email protected]> Date: Tuesday, Mar 27, 2018, 5:49 AM To: Quartarolo, Amy (LA) <[email protected]>, Carmichael, Andrew E. (CIV) <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Stockman v. Trump - Ex Parte Notice Amy, I received your email. We read Local Rule 7-3 to specifically exempt motions related to preliminary injunctions from the Rule's meet and confer requirement. That being said, I'm happy to have a call with you to try to resolve this issue without the need to involve the Court. I have a hearing this morning in Seattle and am traveling back to DC directly afterwards. Is there a time tomorrow that works well for you? I have a call with the Court in another matter at 10:30 ET but am otherwise available. Best, Ryan Parker Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone

Exhibit B - Page 7


3

-------- Original message -------- From: [email protected] Date: 3/26/18 8:20 PM (GMT-08:00) To: "Carmichael, Andrew E. (CIV)" <[email protected]> Cc: "Parker, Ryan (CIV)" <[email protected]>, [email protected] Subject: FW: Stockman v. Trump - Ex Parte Notice See attached. From: Parker, Ryan (CIV) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, March 26, 2018 8:18 PM To: Quartarolo, Amy (LA) <[email protected]> Subject: Automatic reply: Stockman v. Trump - Ex Parte Notice I'm traveling for a hearing and have limited access to my email. I will respond to urgent emails as soon as possible and other emails when I return to the office on March 28, 2018. For emergencies, please contact my colleage Andrew Carmichael at [email protected]. Best, Ryan Parker Senior Trial Counsel Department of Justice

This email may contain material that is confidential, privileged and/or attorney work product for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, disclosure, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies including any attachments. Latham & Watkins LLP or any of its affiliates may monitor electronic communications sent or received by our networks in order to protect our business and verify compliance with our policies and relevant legal requirements. Latham & Watkins LLP

This email may contain material that is confidential, privileged and/or attorney work product for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, disclosure, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies including any attachments. Latham & Watkins LLP or any of its affiliates may monitor electronic communications sent or received by our networks in order to protect our business and verify compliance with our policies and relevant legal requirements. Latham & Watkins LLP

This email may contain material that is confidential, privileged and/or attorney work product for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, disclosure, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies including any attachments.

Exhibit B - Page 8


4

Latham & Watkins LLP or any of its affiliates may monitor electronic communications sent or received by our networks in order to protect our business and verify compliance with our policies and relevant legal requirements. Latham & Watkins LLP

Exhibit B - Page 9


EXHIBIT C


1


From: Quartarolo, Amy (LA)Sent: Friday, March 23, 2018 9:01 AMTo: Parker, Ryan (CIV); Enlow, Courtney D. (CIV)Cc: [email protected]; Sieff, Adam (LA); White, Harrison (LA)Subject: FW: Stockman v. Trump: Draft DocumentsAttachments: Stockman v. Trump - Redline of 26(f) report.docx; 2018.3.12 Stockman 26(f) Exhibit A -

Revised.pdf; Stockman v. Trump - Proposed Protective Order.docx; Stockman v. Trump - Joint Stipulation - FRE 502(d) Order.docx; Stockman v. Trump - Joint Stipulation -Protective Order.docx

Ryan – What is the hold up on this? We cannot go a week or more without any response from you. Please confirm and let’s get these on file no later than Monday morning. If you are not prepared to file, we request a call on Monday to discuss any remaining issues.

Amy

From: Quartarolo, Amy (LA) Sent: Friday, March 16, 2018 4:17 PM To: Parker, Ryan (CIV) <[email protected]>; Enlow, Courtney D. (CIV) <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]; Sieff, Adam (LA) <[email protected]>; White, Harrison (LA) <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Stockman v. Trump: Draft Documents

Ryan –

We wanted to follow up on this. Please let us know your thoughts, including whether we jointly can agree on the proposed schedule, so that the documents can be finalized and submitted.

We also attach our minor comments to the two stipulations and protective order. On the protective order, the magistrate (to whom the stipulations should be directed) requires an explicit statement of good cause, so we went ahead and added that to the draft.

Again, we would like to get these on file asap.

Thanks, Amy

From: Quartarolo, Amy (LA) Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 3:02 PM To: 'Parker, Ryan (CIV)' <[email protected]>; [email protected] Cc: Enlow, Courtney D. (CIV) <[email protected]>; Sieff, Adam (LA) <[email protected]>; White, Harrison (LA) <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Stockman v. Trump: Draft Documents

Ryan –

Attached are our further edits to the joint report and exhibit/schedule. Let us know if you have any further changes. We also will send over our few comments to the protective order and stipulations.

Thanks, Amy

Exhibit C - Page 10


2

From: Parker, Ryan (CIV) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 12:04 PM To: Quartarolo, Amy (LA) <[email protected]>; [email protected] Cc: Enlow, Courtney D. (CIV) <[email protected]> Subject: Stockman v. Trump: Draft Documents Amy and Enrique, I’ve attached a draft of our Rule 26(f) report with our proposed changes in redline and our proposed schedule of pretrial and trial dates (Exhibit A). I have also attached draft stipulations and proposed orders for both the protective order and FRE 502(d) order that we’ve agreed on. We are still reviewing all of these documents in our office, but I don’t expect major changes. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Best, Ryan B. Parker Senior Trial Counsel United States Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch Tel: 202-514-4336 | [email protected]

Exhibit C - Page 11


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING EX PARTE APPLICATION TO STRIKE MOTION TO DISSOLVE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION





Plaintiffs,


Defendants.


[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISSOLVE THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

LOS ANGELES

1 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING DOE

PLAINTIFFS’ APPLICATION TO FILE UNDER SEAL

[PROPOSED] ORDER The Court, having reviewed and considered Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Application

to Strike Defendants’ Motion to Dissolve the Preliminary Injunction, hereby

GRANTS the Application, ORDERS that Defendants’ Motion to Dissolve the

Preliminary Injunction [Docket No. 82] (the “Motion”) be stricken, and further

ORDERS that Defendants shall comply with Local Rule 7-3 prior to re-filing the

Motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _____________________________ Hon. Jesus G. Bernal United States District Judge


Date post:	25-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times